backtop


Print 233 comment(s) - last by wordsworm.. on Apr 9 at 1:59 PM

Brendan Eich made a donation in support of California’s anti-gay marriage law

After only a short time as CEO, Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich is stepping down. According to Mozilla, Eich is stepping down from his position as CEO at Mozilla due to public criticism after Eich made a 2008 donation supporting California's ban on gay marriage. 

"We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: It's because we haven't stayed true to ourselves," said Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker in a statement.

"We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage and to be guided by our community."

Many Mozilla employees took to Twitter to complain about Eich's apparent stance on gay marriage, and okCupid even urged a boycott, pushing its users to use other browsers instead. 


[SOURCE: Tech Week Europe]

Eich's $1,000 donation in support of California’s anti-gay marriage law Proposition 8 reportedly came to light last year. He co-founded Mozilla in 1998 and even created the JavaScript programming language. He was appointed to Mozilla CEO only two weeks ago.

“So I don’t want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years we’ve been going,” Eich told The Guardian. “I don’t believe they’re relevant.”

However, Eich decided to step down today since employees and the public remain concerned over his position on the topic, and while Mozilla said this was Eich's decision, the company likely doesn't want to be known as an anti-LGBT company. Not only will this exclude many potential users, but also create a difficult environment for some employees.

Baker said Mozilla will have more information on its plans to replace Eich next week. 

"While painful, the events of the last week show exactly why we need the Web — so all of us can engage freely in the tough conversations we need to make the world better," said Baker.

"We will emerge from this with a renewed understanding and humility — our large, global and diverse community is what makes Mozilla special, and what will help us fulfill our mission."

Sources: Mozilla, re/code



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Tolerance
By FITCamaro on 4/3/2014 9:57:13 PM , Rating: 5
The irony is dripping.




RE: Tolerance
By retrospooty on 4/3/2014 10:21:14 PM , Rating: 3
Yup, were all going to hell fast. Soon enough the gays will come and marry you. /s


RE: Tolerance
By FITCamaro on 4/3/14, Rating: 0
RE: Tolerance
By retrospooty on 4/3/2014 11:23:48 PM , Rating: 4
I don't even know what to say to that. Whose rights would Jesus trample?

I guess it depends on which part of the Bible you decide to believe in today. The part where God created us all in His image and loves us all, or the part where it's against homosexuality. or do you just pick and choose what suits you?


RE: Tolerance
By Ringold on 4/4/2014 12:32:07 AM , Rating: 4
Here's my thing. Why do liberals demand to co-opt a title that is so obviously drenched historically in religious trappings? I think it's intentionally greedy political over-reach. If the push was for civil unions I suspect most of the opposition would either fall silent or be completely marginalized. As it is, I can't vote for it because it's just another case of the left wishing a word or phrase meant something that it never has and was never intended to, but a simple switch to civil union -- I'd be on board 100%.

In fact, here's a libertarian idea. Retroactively reclassify all marriages as civil unions, and leave the designation of 'marriage' as something with no legal weight but to be bestowed by the churches. It gets the federal government out of the issue, and everyone more or less gets what they want out of the deal -- assuming protecting the institution of 'marriage' is what the right wants and legal benefits is what the left wants.

But, like I alluded to, I don't think thats the only thing the left wants. That or you're all somewhat dense for choosing the most politically difficult way possible to get what you want, by intentionally pissing off other voting blocks. Proxy culture war and electoral manipulation (getting the base excited) is closer to the truth IMO.


RE: Tolerance
By retrospooty on 4/4/2014 8:12:31 AM , Rating: 4
I agree if it were de-coupled from the religious ceremony it would help for many, but still, that really isn't the point. Laws against gay marriage are limiting their rights for equal treatment plain and simple. It says, "you are different and aren't entitled to the same rights and benefits as the rest of humanity" and that is wrong, period.

It's coming, whether you like it or not. Like Womens right to vote and Blacks right to vote, it's inevitable - you guys againts gay marriage need to learn to deal with it... In another 20 years it will be all 50 states (if not alot sooner).

Here is a tip to deal... Live your life exactly as you do today and do nothing different, other than not worry about what 2 consenting adults do in their own lifes. Sounds simple no?


RE: Tolerance
By MrBlastman on 4/4/2014 11:38:04 AM , Rating: 1
I'm 100% onboard with what Ringold said. I've been suggesting the same thing for years now and the left has yet to acknowledge it as a grand compromise solution. Everyone wins when Marriages are de-regulated from the states and tax code and instead, Civil Unions are proxied in place for ALL couples wishing to unify. Give the Churches the only ability to call it "marriage" and likewise, have the title of "marriage" have zero legal bearing to anything beyond the church in society.

Let Civil Unions stand for everything. But, as you point out, I don't think the LGBT community wants this. I think they want to piss all over religion and call it their own.

quote:
It says, "you are different


But they are different.

I have a four-year old daughter. She's a beautiful little girl, fresh to this world with a mind open to anything. As a parent, I get to decide what goes into that sponge. I am her keeper. Her guardian. Her teacher.

Just this last weekend I took her to the Atlanta science festival. There she had the pleasure of touching a real human brain. I must say it was a bit squishy but likewise, rubbery at the same time. It was fascinating. She couldn't stop talking about it all day long.

After that she looked through microscopes, explored the unknown, even listened to music made by protein folding through headphones. She saw robots, nanotechnology, biological experiments, blood testing, plants, skulls, evolution, astronomy, engineering... it was all there. I went with one single goal--to spark a fire inside of her for a lifelong pursuit of science. If I could raise an astrophysicist out of her, I'd be the happiest dad on Earth.

Who knows? I don't. She'll ultimately choose her own path in life. But I get to feed her these eighteen years whatever I think is best for her.

That's why I choose to also feed her mind not only science (and believe me, I feed her a LOT of science), but knowledge of religion, too. I teach her about not only Christianity, but other religions also. It is important to know how people think. Entire societies around this world revolve around religion. To neglect it would be ignorant.

I also teach her that everything on Earth is not the same. I tell her that there are things women can do that men can't. Likewise, I tell her men can do some things they can't. That they are different. Not just in looks but biologically speaking, they are made differently.

Now I haven't gone into the special biological "bits" that separate us (she has plenty of years ahead of her to learn this--not now), but I've been quite clear that a man can't bear a child and likewise, a woman is wired, mentally speaking, to handle multi-tasking and child-centered tasks better than men.

I imagine some feminists will jump all over me for saying that. I don't care. It is truth. I as a man accept my faults. I have a weakness. I am extremely talented at focusing on a single task and can perform it well--by itself and nothing else at the same time. Give me more than one thing and I have problems. My wife, on the other hand, somehow is thinking and trying to do everything simultaneously. It is beyond me. It is beyond practically all men. We aren't built to do this. We are different.

Gays are different, too. They might share our DNA, they breathe our same air, eat our same food, observe our same laws, work like everyone else and pursue happiness like the rest of us. Our constitution guarantees this pursuit. It doesn't, however, guarantee actual happiness.

They are unhappy the world views them as different.

They are different.

Genetically speaking, they have differences in their code. They have something inside of them that tells them to desire the same sex. The rest of society (ninety plus percent) have code that tells them to desire the opposite sex and reproduce. And we do. Because of reproduction, humanity continues to exist.

Despite all this, there is something inside LGBTs that tell them to not do so. It tells them to desire similarity. This doesn't lead to reproduction. It leads to pleasure. It might also lead to happiness. It also leads to them being ostracised.

All life on this world is wired to reproduce. If it wasn't, life would cease to exist. Life is programmed by evolution to shun defective biology that hinders their survival. If all life were gay, the world would become a barren place in a matter of centuries--at least of neuro-centric life. Life that has a brain and neurology that directs their actions.

Sure, humans have free will. Practically all other life does not. I even regard my cat as a simple automaton following preset routines. It obeys algorithms and acts according to if then else statements in a state machine. Humans aren't like this. We make choices.

LGBTs don't choose to be gay, however. At least this is how I see it. At the core, something deep inside them does. It makes them different. No matter what they tell me, they are. Their core tells them to not pursue reproduction.

So to me, to consider them equal to everyone else is a farce. They aren't. They can however be treated equally under the law. They can pursue happiness like the rest of us. They can't, however, be guaranteed it. None of us are.

Because of these differences a commmon ground must be found. Civil Unions are just this. Marriage is not. Marriage has always signified Man + Woman. Think of it this way:

Man + Woman = child
Man + Man = ???? (dirty brown stuff)
Woman + Woman = ???? (not a child)

So why not compromise? Keep Marriage sacred like it has been. Make Civil Unions the only legal title.

Celebrate difference.

We ARE all different. Don't deny biology. Keep us unique. Let us recognize we are unique. I don't want a world of clones. That, to me, would be boring and bland.

I realize my opinion might not be popular--but I don't care. :) It is my opinion. We all should have one. A different one. A unique one. That's what free-thinkers do.

quote:
Here is a tip to deal... Live your life exactly as you do today and do nothing different, other than not worry about what 2 consenting adults do in their own lifes. Sounds simple no?


That is what we should do. That means we don't do stupid stuff like complain...

About a St. Patrick's day parade--that is about religion. A religious celebration... and try and turn it into a gay pride event.

or

March around the streets wearing rainbow clothing while deliberately trying to show off your preference for the same sex.

or

Throw hissy-fits in public, sue people into the ground, smear people on the news, in print, wherever you can because someone disagrees with your "perfect" view of everything.

I'm straight. I don't go around kissing my wife like I'm about to go off to war. I don't shout out loud--"I like poonanny and want to twizzle my dizzle in her shizzle!" I don't wear shirts indicating this, either.

I also don't hold straight pride parades, either.

If LGBTs want to be treated with respect, they need to respect the ninety plus percent of humanity which chooses to reproduce normally, like biological evolution indends us to do.


RE: Tolerance
By Dr of crap on 4/4/2014 11:58:40 AM , Rating: 1
Damn I said the same thing and was voted down !!!

Go figure.

Way to state it MrBlastman.

Glad to see there are others that don't want the gayness shoved at us. Just be gay and STFU!


RE: Tolerance
By wordsworm on 4/4/14, Rating: -1
RE: Tolerance
By MrBlastman on 4/4/2014 12:12:57 PM , Rating: 2
Separation of Church and State. The Constitution is clear! There is no issue here!

Yet there are obviously plenty of gays who DO care about the Church angle. Otherwise, they would be content with Civil Unions... for EVERYONE.


RE: Tolerance
By wordsworm on 4/4/2014 12:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
Lots of American gays go to churches. So yeah, they care about that sort of thing. Their churches define marriage differently. I personally am looking forward to the Canadian government making it illegal for churches to not marry gays where heteros can. ie., a Mormon temple.


RE: Tolerance
By MrBlastman on 4/4/2014 12:43:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I personally am looking forward to the Canadian government making it illegal for churches to not marry gays where heteros can. ie., a Mormon temple.


That is a dangerous precedent. You are playing fire with a belief like that.

Remember what happened the last few times Religion and State became intertwined? How about when the State dictated Religion?

Let's see...

Islamic countries--Saudi Arabia... oppression of women... check!

Anglican England... Protestants left...

Catholic Church in Medieval Europe--we all know how that went if you were a scientist back then.

Hitler and the Jews...

Stalin and Atheism... All those poor Jews and Christians were murdered...

Hussein and the Shi'ites.

The list goes on. No matter how you sort it... Religion and State should always be separate. Religion should be allowed to exist, unregulated and free. Likewise, the State should perpetually be devoid of any and all religious influence.

Condoning the Canadian government forcing the church to do something against their doctrine... that is a step down a dark road of nastiness I'm sure most Canadians don't want to travel.

Today it will be one issue... tomorrow another. Who knows what it will be years from now?


RE: Tolerance
By wordsworm on 4/4/14, Rating: -1
RE: Tolerance
By MrBlastman on 4/4/2014 4:26:43 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Well, then how about removing the ability of intolerant churches to marry anyone? ie., if you discriminate against lawful marriages, then you can only symbolically and not legally marry couples. Seems fair to me.


Sure, it is fair, but it isn't a compromise.

A compromise means both parties give something up to come to a middle ground. Making church marriages symbolic but not meaningful gives the gays everything they want without losing anything.

Taking the title of "marriage" away from the State, making it no longer a legal term and replacing it with "civil union," does. That's compromise.

The Christians won't be 100% happy with it. The Gays won't either. Both give a little but we ALL win in the end.


RE: Tolerance
By Ringold on 4/4/2014 9:16:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sure, it is fair, but it isn't a compromise.


That's the other problem with these "tolerant" left-wing extremists. Compromise means complete surrender to their way of thinking, and failure to do so means the other side is 'intransigent' or 'partisan' or not open to their special form of 'compromise'.


RE: Tolerance
By wordsworm on 4/4/14, Rating: 0
RE: Tolerance
By retrospooty on 4/4/14, Rating: -1
RE: Tolerance
By wordsworm on 4/4/2014 2:41:22 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't go far enough. All churches who want the weight of the law in their religious ceremonies ought to have to marry all law abiding couples. If not, then relegate them to ceremonies without the weight of the law.


RE: Tolerance
By Solandri on 4/4/2014 3:33:21 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Then why is the church (some Church's) fighting Gay marriage? I totally agree , it should be separate. TELL THE CHURCH FOLKS THAT!

Because what's being put forth isn't separation of church and state. It's state authority over church functions. See, there's this little part of the First Amendment which the "separation of church and state" people like to forget exists:

quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


If a church does not believe in gay marriage, forcing them to recognize or perform gay marriages is unconstitutional . This is why forcing recognition of gay marriages is unworkable, while shifting all government benefits (and disadvantages) tied to marriages over to civil unions works. The church definition is tied to the term 'marriage'. The government definition is not - if a couple has lived together for x years, they already can legally be considered to be a couple in a civil union even if they were never married. From a religious perspective, whether you've had the marriage ceremony is what's important. From the government perspective, how you're living together is what's important. They couldn't care less about the ceremony except as a way to denote the exact date when a couple started living together.

Fundamentally there are two possible rationales here. Does a gay couple really care that the Mormon church (to pick a random one that's been mentioned in this thread) won't recognize their marriage? Or do they just want the government benefits and recognition that come with being a couple?

If you just want the benefits and recognition, then the civil union solution works for all parties.

If you want to piss over religion and force churches to recognize gay marriages, then the civil union solution is unacceptable. But your motivation violates the Constitution.

Most religious people I've talked to are ok with the civil union thing. None of the pro-gay marriage people I've talked to are OK with it. That would seem to support the conclusion that this is more about violating the Constitutional rights of religious people than it is about equal protection for gay people. Why change the legal definition of a word which has deep (and for many people, holy) meaning outside of government, when a perfectly acceptable legal term (civil union) already exists which does the same thing for legal and government purposes?


RE: Tolerance
By Rukkian on 4/4/2014 4:17:38 PM , Rating: 4
You may be pushing for it, but unless you actually get the term marriage removed from all government mention, and make everybody (hetro, homo, etc) declare as civil union, then it is not the same. The problem comes from government adopting the term marriage and using it as a legal definition. It may have originally came from a religious meaning, but it has changed over the years and is now a legal term as well. I do not see that changing anytime soon (if ever).


RE: Tolerance
By Nutzo on 4/4/2014 5:51:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why change the legal definition of a word which has deep (and for many people, holy) meaning outside of government, when a perfectly acceptable legal term (civil union) already exists which does the same thing for legal and government purposes?


Because these people (LGBT) are the real intolerant bigots.
They are so insecure in their lifestyle choice, that they will not be happy until they destroy anyone who disagrees with them.

Don’t believe the polls, the silent majority will NEVER accept Gay marriage, and they are silent because of the hate that is directed at anyone who stands up for traditional marriage.

As for my response, I’ve already uninstalled Firefox from all my systems. I’d rather use IE than support a company that is so against individual free speech.


RE: Tolerance
By retrospooty on 4/4/2014 6:18:20 PM , Rating: 1
"I’d rather use IE than support a company that is so against individual free speech"

Dang... That is some serious hatred. I wouldnt use IE unless my families lives depended on it. LOL. Nothing else is worth that horror.

http://imgur.com/3B0pt3M?tags


RE: Tolerance
By Digimonkey on 4/4/2014 8:54:53 PM , Rating: 2
No doubt, at least use Chrome man.


RE: Tolerance
By Ammohunt on 4/4/2014 12:36:23 PM , Rating: 4
Frankly i am getting tired of hearing about it. I like most modern people can give a rats ass about your sexuality! i have grown to resent the militant gays in general because i can't escape getting hit over the head with their sexual preference at every turn. I will tolerate and never discriminate against homosexuality but i will never accept it (biology is against you), i don't have to so quit forcing it on me. So realize you have won! the majority of Americans agree(if they ever disagreed) that same sex unions should have equal protection as far as rights get over yourselves already!


RE: Tolerance
By retrospooty on 4/4/14, Rating: -1
RE: Tolerance
By MrBlastman on 4/4/2014 12:19:59 PM , Rating: 5
I addressed this already. Civil Unions for all. That's equality.

What they might not get to equally share is the title of "marriage" if we leave it to the churches. That's okay with me!

Biologically speaking, they choose not to reproduce at the core. Some do, but instinctively, they do not pursue it. Thus keeping "marriage" separate from the State and Federal governments is logical.

I'm human. Not old-fashioned. I still call whites white, I still call blacks black. Their skin color is different. However, when it comes to business or even social interactions, I treat them the same. They are humans like the rest of us. That's what my solution would do.


RE: Tolerance
By Digimonkey on 4/4/2014 1:07:55 PM , Rating: 2
I'm all for government recognizing civil unions instead of marriages. However it doesn't protect marriage. Some church's and religions will recognize gay marriages while others don't. In the end people will just have to realize the definition of marriage is not their's to protect. It's just a word and words change meanings.


RE: Tolerance
By MrBlastman on 4/4/2014 1:13:16 PM , Rating: 2
Some churches won't. You are correct!

But some will.

In a world of different beliefs, opinions and ideals, we have to find compromise somewhere. This is it.


RE: Tolerance
By Digimonkey on 4/4/2014 1:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
I think that scenario is completely fair myself, I'm just stating people are voting against gay marriage to protect the definition. If the government leaves it up to the Church's discretion, then marriage will slowly be redefined.


RE: Tolerance
By wordsworm on 4/4/14, Rating: 0
RE: Tolerance
By Digimonkey on 4/4/2014 2:10:13 PM , Rating: 3
Separation of Church and State should always go both ways. In no way should any one have the right to be accepted and married by a particular Church.


RE: Tolerance
By Rukkian on 4/4/2014 2:21:43 PM , Rating: 2
Why get involved in the first place? Why should the church be dictated what they can and can't do? I don't believe any government should be setting policy for a church.


RE: Tolerance
By Solandri on 4/4/2014 3:42:42 PM , Rating: 5
Yup, that's exactly the problem.

Redefining marriage to include gay couples artificially creates a conflict between religious protections in the 1st Amendment and the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment. Those against religion will use it as a tool (an unconstitutional one) to repress churches which refuse to recognize gay marriages.

Shifting the government benefits over to civil unions neatly settles the matter without any conflict.


RE: Tolerance
By Digimonkey on 4/4/14, Rating: 0
RE: Tolerance
By Rukkian on 4/4/2014 2:18:16 PM , Rating: 5
I think it would be tough now that "marriage" is a legal term, not just a religious term to get that changed. Once it became a legal term, it needs to apply to everybody.

If there were some way to go and change the legal term to civil union and not have any legal meaning to marriage, it would probably be ideal, I just don't see it happening.

I don't understand why some churches (and right leaning people) care what somebody else wants to call their civil union. If they want to call it marriage, let them. Have you church not recognize that and be done with it. If people would stop protesting that it is ruining the sanctity of marriage, I think we would be better off all around.

I have never understood why people feel the need to be worried what somebody else is doing behind close doors. I am not gay, and have been married 17 years to my lovely wife. If somebody else wants to get married to another person, let them, it does not effect you at all, no matter what they call it.


RE: Tolerance
By Solandri on 4/4/2014 4:02:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't understand why some churches (and right leaning people) care what somebody else wants to call their civil union. If they want to call it marriage, let them.

They don't. Or at least I don't. If they want to call themselves married, that's their right as human beings.

The problem is when you take a term like 'marriage' which had one meaning for a group of people, attach a lot of legal baggage to it for all people, then you change the legal definition of the word to something different which contradicts how the group of people originally used it, it opens up that group to legal liability for continuing to the word in the same way they always have.

e.g. Consider the term 'hacker'. Originally it was used by people who liked to think of unusual or unorthodox solutions to problems. e.g. If you were a hacker, you might have figured out how to dial a rotary phone without turning the dial - you can depress the hook rapidly to simulate the dial turning. That is a 'hack' and you are a hacker. You set up a Hacking Club, and send out brochures offering to teach kids hacking tricks and how to think outside the box to be hackers. The government recognizes this as a legitimate business, and grants you 401(c)(3) classification as a non-profit organization helping to educate kids.

Then one day someone decides 'hacking' should mean illegally breaking into computer systems. They redefine the word in law so that it now refers to a different activity.

You continue running and advertising your Hacking Club. Someone sees the ad and sues you for teaching kids illegal activities. They notice you've been doing this for a couple decades now, and a class action suit is filed against you by people who've had their systems broken into by hackers. You have done nothing wrong, you have changed nothing. But because the government changed the definition of a word intricately tied to what you did, you are now open to legal liability.

Why create the possibility of that kind of problem when a perfectly good alternative word - civil union - already exists and is already used by government to effectively mean the same thing as marriage?


RE: Tolerance
By Rukkian on 4/4/2014 4:26:49 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Why create the possibility of that kind of problem when a perfectly good alternative word - civil union - already exists and is already used by government to effectively mean the same thing as marriage?


There is the problem it is not the same thing in the eyes of the law. Marriage is a legal term, and has been for quite awhile. Unless you can some how remove that term from all government mentions, it is still there and has meaning.

Even if you don't care (sounds like you actually do), many seem to actually care. Why does it matter what the government calls it - marriage, civil union, shacking up, etc, why does it matter. If the legal definition changes, but it does not effect you religious beliefs (why would your personal religious beliefs matter if somebody else wants to say they are married). There are churches that do perform marriage ceremonies on gay couples. What about that?

I try to live my life by the live and let live. I don't care what others are doing, do not engage in gossip (cause I don't care) and just don't worry about other people's business, as it is non of mine. This country (the world?) would be a much better place imho if everybody else could live by that philosophy as well.


RE: Tolerance
By TSS on 4/4/2014 7:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
What if i told you it doesn't matter how you call it?

There are simply people who do not like the idea of gays having the same rights as they do. If you rename all marriges to civil unions - those people are still going to protest it.

And personally... i feel that they should be allowed to. Don't get me wrong i've got nothing against gays, but i as i get older i'm starting to change in the way i view freedom and liberty. If you force somebody against their will to silently accept gays, is that still freedom? It seems rather ironic to force somebody to be somebody they are not in order for somebody else to be who he is.

Once again, i'm for freedom for all. Your freedoms stop at the other person, so i do not wish for those people who voice their opinions against gays to actually harm gays - and there should be laws restricting so. Not specific laws against gays or anti-gays, just laws against the harm of another person in general. But as long as it simply remains their opinion, i see not why we should take action against it.

No need to rename marrige (as the same problems will just arise again), just accept that some people are not going to like things the way they are. Then select the option most free to the most people (freedom for everybody in everything is an utopia afterall). Which would be allow everybody to get married to whomever or whatever they please with equal rights as to taxes or whatever.

Then the protesters can go on hating gays, while the gays can go on hating protesters. But atleast we're all enjoying the freedom to do so.


RE: Tolerance
By Ringold on 4/4/2014 9:21:37 PM , Rating: 3
I disagree to an extent, TSS. I can't be the only person against all of this completely on the grounds of seeing it as one group of people trying to completely co-opt the faith-based social institutions of another, part of a long-running campaign of inserting government control in everything and redefining entire swaths of the dictionary and even history itself to fit their agenda.

Simply changing it to leave marriage and the church out of it and I'd be 100% on board with extending all the equivalent legal protections. Retro above showed no real interest in that, though. He, like most of them, seem only interested in antagonizing the church.


RE: Tolerance
By EricMartello on 4/7/2014 11:03:27 AM , Rating: 2
You're on target with this one, and it's not unlike what I've been saying...

Homosexuality is not a "normal" condition. It is a mental disorder AT BEST. It should not be treated as anything beyond a mental disorder, and people should be seeking treatment for it rather than attempting to force an entire country to accept them "as they are".

Since gays did choose the latter, they need to accept the fact that they are and always will be a minority...and that just as they are being allowed to be "gay", people have a a right to dislike them, avoid them or shun them. For the Mozilla CEO to be forced out because of his views is utterly disgusting.

The other big issue that this whole "gay is a new normal" political agenda causes is that it undermines the potential for others afflicted with mental/psychological disorders to receive treatment. Nymphos, pedophiles and other people with mental sickness become automatically demonized as a result of the push to accept a major mental disease - homosexuality - as "human reinvented".

Unlike gays, who are portrayed as "good people that simply want to be accepted", a pedophile cannot do so. Society will never "accept" someone who assaults children (and rightly so). So while being gay may seem innocuous, it is precisely in the same category as other mental disorders that we all know and hate...and because they want people to think being gay is a "new normal" when it's not, it means that people suffering from uglier afflictions get marginalized and never have a chance for treatment.


RE: Tolerance
By Ringold on 4/4/2014 9:14:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I agree if it were de-coupled from the religious ceremony it would help for many, but still, that really isn't the point. Laws against gay marriage are limiting their rights for equal treatment plain and simple.


You proved my point. I offered an alternative that gave you what you said you wanted, you said "that isn't the point" (even though some smart gay rights groups do propose what I said), and then went off fighting for marriage again.

By the way, you didn't vote for Obama in 2008, did you? I mean, since he had the same position -- at that time, before "evolving." Of course you did. You're a pawn.

quote:
It's coming, whether you like it or not.


For the most part I actually don't care at all, but you're right, a future where the state is has become the church is coming. That doesn't mean as a libertarian I have to embrace this bold new world that sees people tarred and feathered for expressing opinions and the government forcing people to act against their conscious (ACA) and determining criteria for religious ceremony (marriage).


RE: Tolerance
By FITCamaro on 4/4/2014 8:22:19 AM , Rating: 4
How about make the government not care about marriage at all? Remove all reasons for people wanting to get married other than just wanting to be together. A FairTax would make it so it doesn't matter if you're married. As far as health benefits, visitation rights, etc, why should the government be involved in that at all? If a health insurance provider wants to let you put someone on your plan, they should be able to regardless of whether or not they're your spouse. Hospitals should be allowed to let you designate who can visit you.

I'm getting married next week. I view the state's involvement in that as something I have to deal with. Not who validates whether or not my marriage is real. My marriage is between me, my soon to be wife, and God. I shouldn't need permission from the state to get married. An there really shouldn't be any state or federal benefits to it either. What really sickens me, is that today there is more incentive to cohabitate than to get married.

Government is not the answer. Less government is.


RE: Tolerance
By Reclaimer77 on 4/4/2014 8:43:07 AM , Rating: 1
Exactly. We're in this mess BECAUSE of Government taking over marriages.

People talk about marriage as if it's a right. Well is it? Then why do I need to apply for a MARRIAGE LICENSE if it's a right?

So the Government has made marriage a privilege, much like a driving license, instead of what it should be; a right.


RE: Tolerance
By kamiller422 on 4/7/2014 10:59:16 AM , Rating: 2
Sigh. Might be the first time I disagree with Reclaimer.

The government has an interest in marriage because it's more than a man and woman saying they love each other. It's a contractual agreement of two parties becoming one. When this happens, child custody, inheritance, legal representation, etc. become legal matters. Being the government runs the court system, marriage becomes a government concern.

This does not even touch on the welfare issue and the costs associated with broken families. The government, representing the people and law, has a valid interest in marriage.


RE: Tolerance
By retrospooty on 4/4/2014 11:13:51 AM , Rating: 2
"How about make the government not care about marriage at all? Remove all reasons for people wanting to get married other than just wanting to be together. A FairTax would make it so it doesn't matter if you're married. As far as health benefits, visitation rights, etc, why should the government be involved in that at all?"

Totally agreed there - all of it ... It's really none of thier business, unfortunately that isnt how how it works today

Congrats on getting married, BTW... But how would you feel if the govt. said. "No, you cannot be married"?


RE: Tolerance
By FITCamaro on 4/4/2014 1:56:36 PM , Rating: 3
As I put elsewhere, the government approving or not really means nothing to me.


RE: Tolerance
By retrospooty on 4/4/2014 3:09:07 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, it means nothing to me either. I am asking how you would feel of the govt. said, NO, you cannot get married, you get no marriage license and you are not legally married. Pretty angry about I would guess.

In other words we both agree, the govt. has no place here, so how would you feel if the govt. inserted itself into your relationship and said "no, yours is not valid".

It's pure BS, and I think at your core you know that.


RE: Tolerance
By tayb on 4/4/2014 9:46:21 AM , Rating: 2
Marriage isn't a religious idea. Just because Christians hijacked marriage doesn't make it a Christian ceremony. Sorry.

What you are suggesting is no different than the separate but equal laws that were ruled unconstitutional. We have equal rights in this country.

If you want to go to a church and profess your love in front of your sky daddy, go for it. Call it whatever you want.


RE: Tolerance
By CalaverasGrande on 4/4/2014 12:30:50 PM , Rating: 1
thank you!
Marriage was around a loooooong time before anyone got nailed to a cross.


RE: Tolerance
By runutz on 4/4/2014 3:00:17 PM , Rating: 3
"thank you!
Marriage was around a loooooong time before anyone got nailed to a cross."

So was Religion. Perhaps you missed that.


RE: Tolerance
By astralsolace on 4/4/2014 3:11:18 PM , Rating: 5
1) Marriage predates Christianity.
2) Marriage, as it exists in the USA today, is a CIVIL, SECULAR contract between two people that the government just happens to allow religious organizations to officiate. You can get married in a court of law in every single state, as an atheist, or someone of any religion. It has nothing to do with religion WHATSOEVER.
3) "Traditional Marriage" was comprised of one man and many women.
4) "Traditional Marriage" was originally a transference of property, in which the man owned the woman.

Your libertarian idea is nonsensical--neither the equality group or the religious group would go for it. And FYI, religious groups have opposed civil unions in every place they've ever been attempted to be made law.


RE: Tolerance
By Ringold on 4/4/2014 9:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong. It has civil, secular components, but through history it was almost exclusively a function of the church to officiate. Not just allowed to officiate, but accepted as the primary arbiter.

People like you try to minimize the role of religion in the historical foundations of this country. If you ever bothered to actually read, for example, some of their correspondence, or some of their speeches that are so steeped in Christian scriptural references its difficult to even understand, I think you'd be surprised. What polygamists did in 1000 BC is irrelevant to modern culture and its roots.


RE: Tolerance
By Nexos on 4/4/2014 10:01:17 PM , Rating: 3
Except for that little bit where the religion in question is based on the writings of polygamists from 1000 BC right?


RE: Tolerance
By SAN-Man on 4/7/2014 9:11:43 AM , Rating: 2
That's not a Libertarian idea whatsoever.

A Libertarian stance would be that individuals, not the government, decide if they are married or not without a license or permission.

People have the right to call themselves whatever they want - that is a Libertarian idea.


RE: Tolerance
By FITCamaro on 4/4/2014 8:17:42 AM , Rating: 1
God does love everyone. But God also passes judgement. You can't focus on one side of God and ignore the other because it's inconvenient for you.

Jesus came to offer salvation to the entire world if they believed in him. Not say "I've come so now you can do whatever you want."

I look at the whole Bible. You are the one picking and choosing. There are plenty of things in the Bible that make me think "Why did God do that?". But it's not my place to say "You're wrong. I'm going to do whatever I want.". God is who he is regardless of whether I agree with him or try to mold him into who I want to be in my head. I have to give an account, same as you, of all my deeds when I go before him. But as a believer, I know that regardless of my sin, Christ absolves me of it in front of God. That isn't a license to go do whatever I want as long as I say I believe in Christ either. The Bible talks about how actions don't gain one salvation. Only faith does. But a result of faith is actions since if the Spirit lives in you, you should start to change to be more like him. People who knew me before I was a Christian tell me they see the change in me. In how I hardly swear anymore, that I'm more patient, have more empathy, and other things.

Doesn't mean I'm any better than anyone else. I still sin too. I just rejoice though that Christ did that for me and ask him to continue shaping me toward what he wants me to be.


RE: Tolerance
By retrospooty on 4/4/2014 11:19:25 AM , Rating: 2
OK, that is your belief, and that is cool - I truly hope it brings you peace... The problem is that your your beleifs are not everyone beliefs and in this country, we are free to worship how we want.

And I do get what was mentioned above about tolerance, it does work both ways, but you have to keep in mind that if you had your way, your beleifs are stopping them from having the same rights and privileges as you and its stopping them from being together int he way they want to be. Their beliefs are not stopping you from doing anything. See my point?


RE: Tolerance
By FITCamaro on 4/4/2014 2:00:07 PM , Rating: 1
Except this country was founded with freedom of religion. But not freedom FROM religion.

As I've said numerous times, states used to have official religions that were funded with tax payer dollars. Why? Because they had the right to do so. While no state nor the federal government can mandate you belong to a religion. They can create whatever laws they want that don't violate the rights given to you in the Constitution.

Marriage isn't a "right" in the sense that the government has to legally recognize your marriage. They can choose not to. You can still get married in your own eyes. But they don't have to recognize it and give you benefits. As I've explained elsewhere, and you've agreed, the government shouldn't even care in the first place.

Ultimately if you want this problem to be fixed, focus on changing that.


RE: Tolerance
By astralsolace on 4/7/2014 11:25:28 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong. The US was most definitely founded with the idea of protecting people from each other's religious persecution. That's precisely what the establishment clause of the first amendment is about. The constitution also expressly forbids religious tests from being required for holding office (Article VI, Paragraph 3).

It's extremely disingenuous to claim that the constitution wasn't concerned with freedom from religion. And FYI, SCOTUS has ruled a dozen times that marriage is indeed a right, over the last 100 years.


RE: Tolerance
By justpassingthrough on 4/4/2014 12:06:04 AM , Rating: 2
Jesus spoke against homosexuality?!?

Better brush up on your bible studies!


RE: Tolerance
By FITCamaro on 4/4/2014 8:08:29 AM , Rating: 1
Jesus talked about how marriage was given by God as a joining of flesh between man and woman. Period.

He used Sodom and Gamorrah as examples of God's wrath. Sodom and Gamorrah were notoriously known for homosexual behavior. So much so that before God destroyed them, Lot offered his daughters (wrongfully so, but still did) instead of God's angels, disguised as men, to the men of the city who were trying to have a mass gang-rape of them. And they turned the women down.

So you tell me where he stood on the issue?

There is plenty of example in the New Testament as well where homosexuality is spoken of and told to be wrong.


RE: Tolerance
By sgw2n5 on 4/4/2014 1:40:36 PM , Rating: 1
If you have ever eaten shrimp in your life you are a hypocrite. People who pick and chose what to believe (based upon what Fox news decides is the issue du jour) are the worst examples of what this country has to offer.

You don't like gays because they are different than you and that makes you uncomfortable, and you are trying to find religious justification for it.


RE: Tolerance
By MrBlastman on 4/4/2014 4:22:40 PM , Rating: 2
Some people don't like gays because of biology. Homosexuality threatens a species' survival. You need to reproduce to survive.

Don't be mad because they are doing what they are programmed to do by evolution alone.

quote:
People who pick and chose what to believe


Ahem. People who pick and choose what to believe are called free thinkers. They are superior in every way to drones and automatons.


RE: Tolerance
By sgw2n5 on 4/4/2014 5:12:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Some people don't like gays because of biology. Homosexuality threatens a species' survival. You need to reproduce to survive.

Good thing this planet isn't already overpopulated! Seriously... this is the argument you are going with? Reproduction? By your reasoning, we shouldn't like people with fertility issues or allow them to marry either.
quote:
Ahem. People who pick and choose what to believe are called free thinkers. They are superior in every way to drones and automatons.

You are being purposefully obtuse here. Some RELIGIOUS people pick and chose what to believe out of their own RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE. But you knew that already...


RE: Tolerance
By sgw2n5 on 4/4/14, Rating: -1
RE: Tolerance
By Kefner on 4/4/2014 12:35:57 PM , Rating: 5
And you just did the same thing in 7 words, congrats!!!


RE: Tolerance
By sgw2n5 on 4/4/2014 1:29:34 PM , Rating: 1
How so? Calling bigot a bigot is bigoted? Anyone who seriously believes somebody is going to go to hell because of their sexual preferences is bigoted at best, and retarded at worst.


RE: Tolerance
By MrBlastman on 4/4/2014 4:29:43 PM , Rating: 1
How is that bigoted because they believe they are going to hell? What if they are just practicing their religious doctrine?

Are you arguing that we are all the same, that there is no difference in anyone, be it their skin color, sex or sexuality?


RE: Tolerance
By sgw2n5 on 4/4/2014 5:20:09 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
How is that bigoted because they believe they are going to hell? What if they are just practicing their religious doctrine?
If my religion required me to discriminate against women... that would make me a misogynist. If your religion requires you to discriminate against gays, well... that would make you a bigot. Pretty simple stuff really. How can you not understand this?
quote:
Are you arguing that we are all the same, that there is no difference in anyone, be it their skin color, sex or sexuality?
Of course not... you are being purposefully obtuse again. Obviously people are different. Duh. The problem is when people are discriminated against because they are different... but you already knew that.


RE: Tolerance
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2014 11:11:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If your religion requires you to discriminate against gays, well... that would make you a bigot. Pretty simple stuff really. How can you not understand this?


Religious people view this as a moral issue, so you're wasting your time. It would be like trying to convince them that murder is wrong, or stealing, etc etc.

However the real enemy here is apathy, not religion. I think the LBGT community and Liberals have it in their mind that Christians are other religious groups are holding up "gay rights".

The truth is much simpler. Only about 3% of the population are 'LBGT's', so that means about 97% of the entire voting base just doesn't care enough.


RE: Tolerance
By kamiller422 on 4/7/2014 1:44:17 PM , Rating: 2
They care, but 8th grade human biology makes a more convincing argument that man and woman are designed to be complementary mates.

Someone said a sure way to stump a same sex marriage proponent is to ask him/her how exactly does a same sex married couple consummate their marriage?


RE: Tolerance
By Kefner on 4/4/2014 5:20:17 PM , Rating: 2
The fact your asking how so means it won't be worth my time to try and explain it to you, (you will only hear what you want) .

That said, thought Andrew Sullivan, who is gay, summed it up well too.

Per Mr Sullivan: "If this is the gay rights movement today - hounding our opponents with fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else - then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than that anti-gay bullies who came before us."

I honestly hate quoting someone on such an issue, instead of stating my thoughts, but when I read that, it was exactly the way I felt about it in my head, but never had the words to spell it out properly, he did a fantastic job wording it.


RE: Tolerance
By sgw2n5 on 4/4/14, Rating: 0
RE: Tolerance
By wordsworm on 4/4/14, Rating: -1
RE: Tolerance
By FITCamaro on 4/4/2014 10:35:16 AM , Rating: 3
Storage space on the internet is for all intensive purposes, unlimited.

But you still managed to waste bits.


RE: Tolerance
By wordsworm on 4/4/2014 10:57:20 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, you should learn to tolerate Gay Jesus. Mohammed was a man. He had wives. Jesus was gay. We know this because he hung out with 12 gay/bisexual men and washed their feet like a good little woman.

Stop wasting time with girly Jesus and look to a real man to worship: Mohammed. He had 50ish wives? Not as good as Solomon, but certainly better than Jesus. If Jesus had had at least one woman, I would have said he wasn't gay. But... guy washing guy's feet like a little woman? gay.

So, think of it. If Jesus is gay, and you're a gay basher, you're gonna have to bend over and take it like the little bitch you are while I'm in paradise with my 70 virgins.


RE: Tolerance
By MrBlastman on 4/4/2014 11:44:25 AM , Rating: 1
Mohammed was a thug, an ancient gang leader descended from the impure blood of Ishmael, rejected child of Abraham. Not only that, he had intimate relationships with a nine-year old girl.

Hardly the type of man you want to look up to, right?

That is no man. That is a pedophilic child molester who has no respect for the innocent.


RE: Tolerance
By wordsworm on 4/4/2014 11:58:31 AM , Rating: 1
You no doubt heard that from one of them crocodile bitten preachers that use RVs and megaphones to dispense propaganda.

It's true he married a 9 year old, but at the time it was legal pretty much around the world. I'm not excusing it, just demonstrating that Christian men have been marrying underage girls for centuries and raping them on the altar of marriage. The fact that our many civilizations around the world started making 9 and 10 year olds in accessible means that churches were marrying 9 and 10 year olds to adult Christian males. This isn't new to Christianity or anywhere.

We do not know the ages or origins of all 600 of Solomon's wives.

Yeah, girls should be older than 9, I agree.

That aside, we don't know if he had intimate relations with a 9 year old.

Anyways, my point stands: He was a heterosexual. Jesus was gay. If you're going to love Jesus, you need to love gay, too.


RE: Tolerance
By MrBlastman on 4/4/2014 12:21:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyways, my point stands: He was a heterosexual. Jesus was gay. If you're going to love Jesus, you need to love gay, too.


In your imagination he was gay. You have no proof. :) Only assumption.

Assumption doesn't solve a hypothesis.


RE: Tolerance
By wordsworm on 4/4/2014 1:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
Let me find a gay man to anoint your feet and then you can tell me that's not gay.


RE: Tolerance
By Dorkyman on 4/4/2014 1:24:21 PM , Rating: 2
Wordsworm: Bizarre. Just bizarre.

But, hey, you just go on believing what you want to. Alien abductions? Check. WTC towers brought down by GWB? Check.


RE: Tolerance
By wordsworm on 4/4/2014 2:50:20 PM , Rating: 2
I was once an illegal alien, but I swear I didn't abduct anyone, nor was I abducted. If that's happened to someone, then I'll have to listen with the same ear that I do to any preacher talking about aliens with superhuman abilities creating the universe and what-not.

GWB covering up 9/11... yeah, I agree on that. That he orchestrated it? I have a hard time giving him credit for such a diabolical scheme. But maybe a part of his 'charm' is that he is able to play an idiotic monkey so well that no one will hold him responsible for the crimes against humanity which he presided over. Anyways, Obama's too chicken to go after him or his father for their involvement in crimes against humanity or reopen the investigation. Where Bush went to the bank to borrow a few trillion to take over some oil rich fields, Obama's borrowed a few trillion to rebuild America after the wreckage that was known as Bush II. That's why this little brother of yours North of 60 supports Obama over Bush.


RE: Tolerance
By Dr of crap on 4/4/14, Rating: 0
RE: Tolerance
By MrBlastman on 4/4/2014 11:47:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't ask, don't tell was right on!


Damn right.


RE: Tolerance
By sgw2n5 on 4/4/2014 1:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
So what you're saying is that gay people need to keep hidden and be ashamed of who they are?

That line of thinking doesn't seem... wrong?


RE: Tolerance
By MrBlastman on 4/4/2014 4:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
Not if you look at things scientifically. If you did, you'd see there are genetic anomalies and abnormalities. Some of which allow for a species survival giving them an advantage (aka natural selection) while other mutations are counterproductive to this.

They shouldn't be ashamed of who they are but they likewise shouldn't consider themselves the same as everyone else. They aren't. Their genetic code tells us so.


RE: Tolerance
By sgw2n5 on 4/4/2014 5:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not if you look at things scientifically. If you did, you'd see there are genetic anomalies and abnormalities. Some of which allow for a species survival giving them an advantage (aka natural selection) while other mutations are counterproductive to this.

So now you're invoking evolutionary biology as justification for bigotry? Seriously?

Obviously no gay man or woman has ever had a kid before...

Attraction to the same sex is part complex genetic epistatic interactions which are not very well understood (yet) and part environment. It's not a SNP that causes the gay... way more complex than that. You tell me how such a complex phenotype could still exist in ~10% of the population if it was so heavily selected against because it is so detrimental to the species?

quote:
They shouldn't be ashamed of who they are but they likewise shouldn't consider themselves the same as everyone else. They aren't. Their genetic code tells us so.
No two people share identical genetic code (even the genome of monozygotic twins are subject to sequence variation let alone significant epigenetic events that lead to variation). Your genome is different than everyone else in the world too... should we institutionalize discriminating against you?


RE: Tolerance
By wordsworm on 4/4/2014 11:48:42 AM , Rating: 4
Do you or have you ever had a girlfriend with whom you held hands and kissed in public? If your answer is 'yes', then you have behaved in a way you'd probably object to between two men.

Next, we straight men do have parades: Mardi Gras, for example. Carnival in Brazil is another fantastic one. They are both far superior to anything I've seen that the gay pride has done.

Gay people just want to be like us heterosexual people and not be afraid of being themselves because they're afraid that a bunch of jocks with pitchforks and tar aren't going to tar and feather them.


RE: Tolerance
By retrospooty on 4/4/2014 12:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
"I just want them to STOP throwing their gayness in our faces."

I wasn't aware they were throwing it in your face. They have never thrown it in my face. I am confused, what exactly are they throwing and what is in your face?


RE: Tolerance
By Dr of crap on 4/5/2014 11:26:45 AM , Rating: 1
WHY do I need to see the rainbow on their cars?

Why do I need to know that they are gay?
WHY do they need a parade?

I don't have to tell the world that I have kids with my wife. That's what we keep to ourselves. That's way I stated don't ask don't tell worked. I do not NEED to know your gayness.

I'm part Polish, YET I do not tell everyone.

Its very simple we each have a background, YET I do not need you to tell me your sexual preface, without ME ASKING!

Same as I don't need to know church afflation. Its a private thing. Same as you being gay. I DONT NEED TO KNOW!

Did you want me to act differently toward you because you tell me? Nope as I recall you want to be treated the same as everyone. SO DONT TELL ME YOUR gay and you'll be like everyone else!


RE: Tolerance
By wordsworm on 4/5/2014 11:31:57 AM , Rating: 2
You know, I saw three rainbows in Honeymoon Bay with my girlfriend. It was pretty neat to see and we took some photos. I don't know if you can regulate against rainbows. Also, my kids like to colour in rainbows and such.

Why do we need a parade? I can tell you: because they are fun. I love seeing nearly naked women walk down the street or riding on a float.

Living in Vancouver, I got very little gay in the face. Yeah, sometimes guys would kiss or hold hands, but none of that is out of line with what heterosexual couples feel free to do.

I don't know why you believe everyone has to be the same. Your social life must be really lame.


RE: Tolerance
By gixser on 4/5/2014 5:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
And I don't care to know if you or your kids were in the Armed Forces, or that your kid is on the honor role, or that your dog is smarter than me, or that Jesus is coming and that I should be prepared. WTF!!!!


RE: Tolerance
By Makaveli on 4/4/2014 11:23:15 AM , Rating: 2
I was expecting a soviet russia joke there :)


RE: Tolerance
By sugmullon on 4/4/2014 11:27:01 AM , Rating: 1
To those who have and understand what philosophical convictions are:
Any who have and do concerning honest tolerance and free speech will either work from within to prevent this kind injustice by the Mozilla organization in the future, or henceforth boycott it.
This wouldn't be debatable.


RE: Tolerance
By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 4/4/2014 11:39:33 AM , Rating: 2
What is the philosophical difference between this and McCarthyism?

McCarthy had the machinery of government compulsion behind him, but fundamentally this is exactly the same thing. And the Hollywood Blacklist? That was a private matter between studios, borne of the same concern for "public image" as the Mozilla board is claiming for their stance.

It goes to show both sides: any power you arrogate upon yourself to do what you think is good WILL be turned against you to do what you think is bad. Better not to give _anyone_ that power in the first place, and to use persuasion and logic rather than compulsion.


RE: Tolerance
By sickofgaycontrol on 4/4/2014 1:22:00 PM , Rating: 1
I have been a long time user and contributor of Mozilla's browser's and products. As of today, I will no longer contribute to it's further development projects, nor continue use it's products.

The abusive control over it's destiny by twisted deviates is disgusting and repugnant. Good bye forever Mozilla, your time has come to an end...may you die a quick death.


Firefox
By Ringold on 4/4/2014 12:38:46 AM , Rating: 5
Okay, Mozilla wants to be intolerant, I guess I'll play that game too and refuse to use products created by an Orwellian organization that preaches tolerance and then forces out dissenting opinions on totally non-business matters.

Easy for me to do though, since Chrome is much better and has been for a while anyway. :P




RE: Firefox
By sgw2n5 on 4/4/2014 1:47:43 PM , Rating: 2
Mozilla is being intolerant of intolerance? Mozilla is a private company, and if they think that somebody in their company is hurting their image, they should be able to get rid of them.

I would fire one of my employees if they publicly made known that they were bigoted. That hurts my image and I want no part of it.


RE: Firefox
By Solandri on 4/4/2014 4:17:43 PM , Rating: 3
Intolerance of intolerance is a self-contradiction. Either you tolerate everything, or you don't tolerate some things (including other intolerance) and thus are intolerant yourself.

Everyone is bigoted to some extent. It's just the way the human brain works. It cannot evaluate everything all the time, so it takes shortcuts by pre-defining things into categories. Usually this categorization works. When it doesn't work, it's called prejudice.

And for those of you on the left who think you're immune to bigotry, here are a couple glaring ones I've noticed from you:

- Derision of southerners. Whether it's insulting their intelligence, their beliefs, or the way they talk (the double negative being a prime example). All because someone just happened to be born or grew up in the south.

- Gleefully calling Bush a chimp, yet getting all offended when the stereotype comparing blacks to apes is made with Obama. They are both wrong.


RE: Firefox
By Ringold on 4/4/2014 9:59:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I would fire one of my employees if they publicly made known that they were bigoted. That hurts my image and I want no part of it.


He didn't make it public, he made a donation, and was exposed by public record as far as I'm aware.

And you'd fire someone for a private opinion expressed, say, on Facebook? Asides from that making you an intrusive dick, you'd be walking a dangerous lane with respect to labor law.


RE: Firefox
By inperfectdarkness on 4/4/2014 3:54:22 PM , Rating: 2
So instead you choose to use products created by an Orwellian organization that is hell-bent on turning itself into Skynet via shameless and perpetual data collection on everything you do?

Oh yeah, Chrome is not "much better". It's better than everything not called "Firefox", but it's not the best. Never has been. And I'm someone who uses both frequently.

Kudos to Mozilla, btw. I don't care if I get downrated for saying it. Tolerance, in my book, means that a CEO funneling donations towards anti-gay-rights causes is crossing the line. If the CEO wants to be intolerant, that's fine...but the company doesn't have to keep him on the payroll.

P.S.
We force out presidential candidates from running all the time--for issues on totally non-business (read: political) matters. Happened with Herman Cain last go round. Why pitch a fit about it happening with CEO's when we do the same thing with the highest office in the land?


RE: Firefox
By Ringold on 4/4/2014 10:05:03 PM , Rating: 2
I don't mind that about Chrome and Google, no. They're upfront about it, and I take measures to mitigate aspects of things I don't want them to have. For example, I don't care if they scan the e-mail that I have sent to me via gmail, but I don't want them having my files -- so I don't let them have them, I use SpiderOak.

And Google's just trying to make a buck. I'm not a Bolshevik whiner, development of their products isn't costless nor is the maintenance of their services, only a fool would suggest they have no right to try to make a buck in return for all they offer. They're also at least somewhat transparent about the fact they're watching everything you let them watch.

It betrays an immense amount of your own personal bias to equate the two.

quote:
We force out presidential candidates from running all the time


Maybe this feeds in to the above, and perhaps if you're of a Marxist bent you can't see the difference, but none the less there's a huge difference between a private organization and PUBLIC OFFICE.


bs
By SPOOOK on 4/3/14, Rating: 0
RE: bs
By retrospooty on 4/3/2014 11:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
Congrats, I didn't think anyone could be more ignorant than hiscross, but you've done it.


RE: bs
By Dorkyman on 4/4/2014 1:39:02 PM , Rating: 2
"Ignorant," eh? The pendulum swings both ways. The time will come when homosexuality will again be regarded as a perversion, with practitioners being rounded up and sent away. Just look at how other cultures are recoiling at the decadence of the West. We are self-destructing, and I suppose it cannot be reversed.


RE: bs
By datdamonfoo on 4/4/2014 1:44:58 PM , Rating: 3
Yah, right, just as soon as whites-only water fountains and restaurants are reinstated, and right after the ability of women to vote is taken away.
Right after that, we'll start "rounding up" gay people.

Wow.


RE: bs
By retrospooty on 4/4/2014 4:34:56 PM , Rating: 3
I know... WTF? I hope he was being sarcastic, but it didnt seem like it.


So dumb.
By imaheadcase on 4/4/2014 9:06:53 AM , Rating: 5
Its his money he can do what he wants with it, in no way did it affect the company product. He held no political position. This world is getting dumber.




RE: So dumb.
By Solandri on 4/4/2014 4:49:12 PM , Rating: 3
It's worth pointing out that if you believe Eich should've been removed because of how his personal beliefs and actions during his own time affected the reputation of Mozilla, then you must also believe that companies you are interviewing with for a job should have the right to view your private Facebook page and investigate how you spend your personal time.

After all, you've already admitted that you believe your personal beliefs and the activities you participate in on your own time could adversely affect the reputation of the company thinking of hiring you.


By XZerg on 4/4/2014 8:59:31 AM , Rating: 5
Seriously wtf!

I am sure not all LGBT threw a fit about this, heck doubt even 1% did. But that's the reality of today's world:
1) < 1% controlling the world
2) PC idiots out to have society wear kiddie gloves for everything.

I personally have had friends who were gay and never took an issue about it. What I take an issue about some of these LGBT, mostly those who are too vocal about their rights, is that they are full of sh1t. They, the too vocal idiots, in most cases want to push their opinions on to others regardless of what the opinion's true basis is. This case in particular is a shining example of it - free speech my foot!




By purerice on 4/6/2014 1:13:41 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed, yes.

If not politically or economically, then definitely socially, California is probably THE most liberal state in the Union.

So this CEO supported the majority opinion (52%+), which is the same % that Obama won in 2012, and for that he and his company got attacked until his company threw him under the bus?

That would be little different than if 4 years from now some CEO gets sacked for having donated to Obama's 2012 campaign.


Time to Find a New Browser...
By mmatis on 4/4/14, Rating: 0
RE: Time to Find a New Browser...
By datdamonfoo on 4/4/2014 2:51:57 PM , Rating: 2
I would love to know what browser and email program you are going to use by a company that doesn't support gay rights. And I don't say that (completely) sarcastically. I really want to know what you found to be the least pro-gay rights browser/email program.


By Solandri on 4/4/2014 4:28:27 PM , Rating: 1
The point isn't to find a browser which is against gay rights. The point is to find a browser which is pro-freedom of expression.

I was saddened when this story first came across the wires. But seeing the reaction online has actually been pretty uplifting. Many of the sites I frequent with a strong liberal bias, including many gay rights supporters, have expressed disapproval of Mozilla's actions. People are correctly seeing that maintaining a climate where people are not afraid to voice their opinion is one of our most fundamental freedoms.

The line being drawn here isn't pro vs. anti gay rights. It is inclusionist (want to see all people participate in public discourse regardless of their beliefs) vs. exclusionist (want to see people with different opinions and beliefs removed from positions of public influence).


RE: Time to Find a New Browser...
By Solandri on 4/4/2014 4:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
The point isn't to find a browser which is against gay rights. The point is to find a browser which is pro-freedom of expression.

I was saddened when this story first came across the wires. But seeing the reaction online has actually been pretty uplifting. Many of the sites I frequent with a strong liberal bias, including many gay rights supporters, have expressed disapproval of Mozilla's actions. People are correctly seeing that maintaining a climate where people are not afraid to voice their opinion is one of our most fundamental freedoms.

The line being drawn here isn't pro vs. anti gay rights. It is inclusionist (want to see all people participate in public discourse regardless of their beliefs) vs. exclusionist (want to see people with different opinions and beliefs removed from positions of public influence).


RE: Time to Find a New Browser...
By mmatis on 4/4/2014 5:21:33 PM , Rating: 1
Well said.


End marriage
By itzmec on 4/4/2014 12:04:42 PM , Rating: 4
I think we should do away with marriage all together. For everyone. And then fix the tax laws. End of story.




Anti
By hiscross on 4/3/2014 10:36:14 PM , Rating: 1
So same sex or what ever has worked so well in human history. Why not now?




RE: Anti
By datdamonfoo on 4/4/2014 1:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand your question or statement.


WTF
By Donkey2008 on 4/6/2014 3:37:31 AM , Rating: 3
I have been hit on by gay men at every job where I worked with them. These people cannot control their urges, plain and simple, and I have never met a gay in my life where the world didn't revolve around their sex life. It's sickening. When people say it is a disease, I am starting to believe it. I couldn't do ANY job around these perverts where they didn't bring up the topic of sex with continuous gay sex innuendo and I was once even told "come to the dark side" by one of these sickos. I never made a stink, I told them that I was straight and laughed it off. Next time it happens I am going after them and filing a sexual harrassment claim. Screw these idiots.




tolerance
By sugmullon on 4/4/2014 11:25:31 AM , Rating: 2
To those who have and understand what philosophical convictions are:
Any who have and do concerning honest tolerance and free speech will either work from within to prevent this kind injustice by the Mozilla organization in the future, or henceforth boycott it.
This wouldn't be debatable.




ind of conflicted.
By CalaverasGrande on 4/4/2014 12:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
I support peoples right to choose to be or do anything they want, consent granted and of course no harm to others as well.
But I really hate this kind of activism that seeks to persecute people for their beliefs, not actions.
Did he ever use any part of Mozilla to further his anti-gay agenda? Did he attempt to make any changes to Mozilla personnel policy?
If not than this is really uncool.
People on the left and the right need to realize that a victory for 'your' side is a precedent for the 'other' side to do the same.
Will it be just as cool when a CEO of some tech company is forced to resign when it comes out they donated to a pro-choice or pro-gay marriage PAC?
I know it sounds flimsy, but not all of the tech sector is based in CA. It is possible at least.

I suppose I may have given this more thought simply because well, dude is kind of a nerd icon. He invented Javascript and co-founded Mozilla. But seriously, a man should be able to conduct himself in his PRIVATE life according to his beliefs. And it bears repeating that it is easy to protect that right when those beliefs are agreeable to you, but it is when those beliefs are most disagreeable as in the case of nazis, homophobes and other less popular thought patterns, that such protection is necessary. Even mandatory.




Nice knowing you, Mozilla
By lol123 on 4/6/2014 10:04:40 AM , Rating: 2
This will sort of force me to reevalatue my use of Mozilla products. And for me personally this has another level of irony embedded in it in that I have always used, supported and recommended Mozilla products to others (Firefox and Thunderbird in particular) on the merits of the technical quality of the products, and not for any idealistic reasons related to their being based on open-source code or controlled by an independent foundation (though I don't exactly consider those points disadvantages either). The spit in the face that this move constitutes to all conservatives makes it a point of pride for me to look into alternatives to Mozilla software, regardless of how much I like using them. I'm not so sure that Mozilla ever considered the possibility of a dynamic like this coming into play.

To put it another way, that perhaps applies a bit more generally: Forcing a CEO to step down for having donated, on his own expense, to conservative political causes (and had it been liberal causes he had supported, he would never have had to step down) is such an unnecessary way to create badwill among a significant share of the user base. If you want to dive into the game of politics then fine, go ahead, but Mozilla should remember that you can't be friends with everyone.




Now I have to fear Mozilla too?
By DonJCJr on 4/7/2014 10:27:59 AM , Rating: 2
I have deleted Firefox from all my home computers. I cannot trust Mozilla with my privacy since they punished a person for his personal beliefs - and the completely legal actions that person took to support said beliefs (done outside of the work environment). I have no reason now to think MY beliefs will not be monitored & abused by Mozilla if they don't meet the politically/socially correct criteria that Mozilla seems to operate by.




This sets a TERRIBLE precedent
By androticus on 4/8/2014 12:18:05 AM , Rating: 2
The purpose of a company is to make great products to produce profits. The "values" that should unite the employees of a company are making those great products. I probably agree philosophically with 1% of my co-workers or less. What they do in their own time and what they believe outside of work (both within certain bounds of reason of course) are utterly irrelevant.

If we start establishing that there are certain "acceptable" beliefs one must hold in order to be eligible for ANY position in a company, then we are honestly doomed. Soon, only ultra-left-wing, extreme environmentally conscious, polyamorous, Muslim-loving, carbon-hating zealots will have the correct "values" to hold ANY job, never mind CEO.

I happen to support gay marriage. An editorial I wrote in support of it was published over fifteen years ago in Canada's national newspaper, long before it was "hip"--back in a day when it would have been more mainstream to fire me for supporting gay marriage than denouncing it. My views on gay marriage have nothing to do with my view that people's political, religious, and philosophical views have no place in the workplace. Those who smugly claim that the "correctness" of their views entitles them to drive someone from their job, better keep a lookout over their shoulder, for the day will be coming soon when THEIR views are considered unacceptable by some self appointed mob of elites.

Brad Aisa




Free Speech
By coburn_c on 4/3/14, Rating: -1
RE: Free Speech
By CosmoJoe on 4/3/2014 9:49:16 PM , Rating: 5
I don't understand how something he did that isn't in any way related to the business 'tarnished' the company. What this guy does or what he supports, as long at isn't illegal, shouldn't be anyone's business as far as Mozilla is concerned.

This is really sad that our country has come to this point, where we say we value free speech and diversity of opinion but what that *really* means is that if you step out of line and do something that offends one of the special interests in this country then expect to be harassed into oblivion.


RE: Free Speech
By coburn_c on 4/3/14, Rating: -1
RE: Free Speech
By FITCamaro on 4/3/2014 9:59:08 PM , Rating: 4
No one is saying they can't criticize him.

But from a crowd that says they want people to be tolerant of other ideas, it only extends as far as everyone agreeing with them. Once someone doesn't, they are pitched as ignorant, racist, intolerant bigots who hate everyone else.


RE: Free Speech
By coburn_c on 4/3/14, Rating: -1
RE: Free Speech
By StevoLincolnite on 4/4/2014 12:02:39 AM , Rating: 4
As a gay man, I am not offended by his opinion.

Lets face it, everyone is different, so there are bound to be parts of society, regardless of what part of the world you live in, that is simply going to disagree.

People shouldn't be kicking a stink up about it in my opinion, there are far bigger problems in the world today than worrying about someone with anti-gay agenda's making a donation.


RE: Free Speech
By tng on 4/4/2014 9:39:12 AM , Rating: 2
That is just it, he has an opinion.

As the one poster said, all those people who complain about this guy would probably say they are tolerant, but only with people who share the same views? That is not tolerance.

Critical thinking does not exist anymore. Everything is judged through a PC filter.


RE: Free Speech
By inighthawki on 4/4/2014 12:34:09 AM , Rating: 2
I see you cannot read. He's not at all calling for censorship of anyone's opinion. He is claiming that it is not rationale to place any kind of objective criticism about the business or his ability to run the business based on that opinion. And rightly so. His opinion on gay rights has absolutely NOTHING to do with running a business, and should never even come up. It should have no impact on the image or perception of the company simply because he is the CEO. And he's stating that it's a very sad world when that actually does matter.


RE: Free Speech
By Reclaimer77 on 4/4/14, Rating: -1
RE: Free Speech
By Digimonkey on 4/4/2014 9:18:44 AM , Rating: 3
This guy supports an anti rights bill and you get upset about his speech not being protected from public outcry.


RE: Free Speech
By Dorkyman on 4/4/2014 1:32:13 PM , Rating: 1
An "anti rights bill?" That's rich.

Tell you what, I think that a person should be allowed to have sexual relations with animals. In public. That is, as long as the animal is not injured in the process.

By your logic, why not? Are you anti-bestiality? If so, not very progressive on your part.


RE: Free Speech
By Digimonkey on 4/4/2014 1:43:33 PM , Rating: 2
Well by your logic why allow marriage or people to have sex at all? I mean that could lead to all shorts of weird marriages and sex.

By normal logic, the logic most people possess, we can't form any contract with an animal legally, and marriage is basically just a contract so it can't be allowed.


RE: Free Speech
By Digimonkey on 4/4/2014 1:47:01 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry, I reread your post and realized I responded incorrectly. I was assuming you were staying on topic. Anyways you can't have sex with animals because they cannot verbally agree to it. So in essence it's just rape. That is all.


RE: Free Speech
By Reclaimer77 on 4/4/14, Rating: 0
RE: Free Speech
By wordsworm on 4/4/2014 10:34:51 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with that Reclam, but aren't you one of those people who believes celebrities lose their rights to privacy because they're famous?

Anyways, being against gay marriage is a form of intolerance. You cannot tolerate gay marriage. It's too bad your gater or dog ate your dictionary.

I do agree with you ultimately, though. His freedom of speech isn't being protected. Companies should not be allowed to fire people because of things they say. For example, schools should not be allowed to fire teachers who say that sex between 10 year old students and teachers should be OK. Hmmm... yeah, Reclam, I played a trick on you. I hope it wasn't too subtle.

It's not whether or not you agree with this principle. The question is where you draw the line, left of center or right of center, because I don't know anyone who believes in that principle as an absolute. I don't want teachers who openly support NAMBLA. Do you?


RE: Free Speech
By Dorkyman on 4/4/2014 1:28:47 PM , Rating: 2
I am shocked you don't support NAMBLA also. The way things are evolving, I suppose you will in a year or two.


RE: Free Speech
By datdamonfoo on 4/4/2014 2:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
Hyperbole.


RE: Free Speech
By wordsworm on 4/4/2014 2:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
NAMBLA has existed on the skirts of neo-liberalism for a long time just as the KKK has existed on the skirts of of neo-con and retro-con. It doesn't mean that I support them or that you support the KKK. The question for me is not whether or not I accept free speech as an absolute, but where I believe the line belongs. If an 18 year old boy and a man want to get married, I guess I'll support that. But that's where I'd draw the line for either hetero or homosexual legal unions.


RE: Free Speech
By retrospooty on 4/3/2014 10:27:36 PM , Rating: 1
"Once someone doesn't, they are pitched as ignorant, racist, intolerant bigots who hate everyone else."

How is being against gay marriage anything but ignorant and intolerant? as per my joke down below no ones forcing you to marry a gay, why do you care what two consenting adults do? It's none of your damn business.if you're against gay marriage then by all means exercise your freedom to not marry a gay person.

no one forced anything here, Mozilla and this guy just felt that it was bad business and they were probably going to face a boycott. People were likely going to avoid their product because they don't agree with their bigotry. End of story. You guys are on the losing side of history on this one. Gay marriage will happen, its inevitable whether you like it or not.


RE: Free Speech
By Chaser on 4/3/2014 10:38:12 PM , Rating: 3
He has the right to disagree with the redefinition of the institution of marriage. But what's sadly telling about our society today is this cult of victimhood, even worse, over a behavior. All Americans has the right to support their conscious and their values. I personally disagree with homosexuality and last time I checked I'm still entitled to my opinion without the fear of a shock squad -representing those that demand tolerance- from carting me away.


RE: Free Speech
By retrospooty on 4/3/2014 11:11:49 PM , Rating: 1
"I'm still entitled to my opinion without the fear of a shock squad -representing those that demand tolerance- from carting me away.”

Of course you were, but where did anything like that happen here? he exercised his free right to vote for and contribute to what he wanted and he stepped down because he was afraid that they would be boycotted by people exercising their free right not to use Mozilla's products. That is hardly being carted away, even metaphorically it just doesn't fit.

To be honest if you were a business owner, say a restaurant, and I knew that you were anti gay, I don't think I would go to your restaurant. Not because I think it makes your food or service anyway lesser, I just don't want to contribute anything to your stupid ass, and I'm not even gay.

Get out of the dark age, it is not your place to agree or disagree with homesexuality.


RE: Free Speech
By kamilion on 4/3/2014 11:43:09 PM , Rating: 2
What, like, say, Chick-fil-a?
Dat Dan Cathy, man...
Closed on sundays? Lost my business right there.


RE: Free Speech
By FITCamaro on 4/4/14, Rating: -1
RE: Free Speech
By retrospooty on 4/4/2014 8:03:22 AM , Rating: 2
"The biggest lie my generation was ever told was "Do whatever makes you happy." Nevermind if its completely immoral, makes you a fat, lazy slob, a drain on society, or any other host of bad decisions."

I totally agree with you there. The part about striving for a better life has been replaced by "Let the govt take care of me" for FAR too many people and it's bringing us all down... But that is a whole different debate and isn't what this issue is about.


RE: Free Speech
By FITCamaro on 4/4/2014 8:30:37 AM , Rating: 2
It's all related.


RE: Free Speech
By therealnickdanger on 4/4/2014 9:27:41 AM , Rating: 2
Relative morality can never be moral, it's narcissism. "Social justice" can never be justice, it's code for special treatment.

A society incapacitates itself when right and wrong, or lawful and unlawful, become the whim of the individuals or the few. Yes, the risk is then mob rule, but the dividing line between anarchy and liberty is that the rule of law and justice apply to everyone.

I know that these sound like hyperbolic, flag-waving, "'murca" statements, but these concepts are ripped directly from the articles and correspondences of our nation's founders.


RE: Free Speech
By imaheadcase on 4/4/2014 9:11:00 AM , Rating: 2
"Get out of the dark age, it is not your place to agree or disagree with homesexuality."

It is not your place to tell people what they can and can't beleive. It makes zero sense to tell people what to believe in. I would argue you need to get enlightened and realize millions and millions of people don't agree with being gay. It has nothing to do with "being modern" it has to do with a person's personal beliefs.


RE: Free Speech
By retrospooty on 4/4/2014 12:18:32 PM , Rating: 2
Thats fine, but it's really simple, The beleifs of People against gay marriage are stopping gays from living their lives how they want and stopping them from being given the same sest of rights as other humans. Their beliefs are not stopping you from anything. Duh.


RE: Free Speech
By Chaser on 4/4/2014 7:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
You have your right to not conduct business with an "anti gay" restaurant but I have no right to my opinion unless it agrees with yours.

Which is the "dark ages" exactly?



RE: Free Speech
By FITCamaro on 4/3/2014 10:45:05 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah its not like my disagreement is driven by my religious beliefs or anything.

As a result I should be fired from my job, kicked out of my home, and tarred and feathered in the public square right?


RE: Free Speech
By retrospooty on 4/3/2014 11:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
is that how you see this? The guy was tarred and feathered in public?

Try and look at the other side. This guy went out of his way to contribute money to stop other consenting adults from living their lives the way they want to live it. What would Jesus do? I'm pretty sure you know the answer to that. And if anything your Bible says is true God created us all and loves us all, so that would have to include the gays right? I find it hard to believe how anyone calling themselves Christian, religious or even just a good person would stand for trampling the rights of others human beings.


RE: Free Speech
By Ringold on 4/4/2014 12:13:55 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
What would Jesus do?


Bad move, bro. He'd of probably offered them personal forgiveness and extended kindness to them, and felt bad that they would probably spend eternity in a lake of fire. And if we're talking Old Testament, the big shot himself might've, well.. Take your pick. Famine, pestilence, raining fire, butcher their children, armies of pissed off angels butchering anything in sight.

The scripture is so abundantly clear on its position on this that by even making a religious person THINK about the bible and what it says you're sinking your own ship.


RE: Free Speech
By Ringold on 4/4/2014 12:34:50 AM , Rating: 1
For clarity sake... I don't personally believe the above, much less wish it upon anyone in whatever afterlife there may be, if any. Just saying. There's many things Christian scripture is vague on. This isn't one. Worst possible way to try to argue the case.


RE: Free Speech
By Digimonkey on 4/4/2014 11:05:51 AM , Rating: 2
Well honestly Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. There was that part about rich people not getting into heaven though.


RE: Free Speech
By FITCamaro on 4/4/2014 8:01:33 AM , Rating: 2
Well glad that even if you don't believe it, that its abundantly clear to you as well.

I don't think I could have put that any better.


RE: Free Speech
By rsmech on 4/4/2014 12:16:39 AM , Rating: 2
You are the one doing the tar and feathering with comments like bigot and stupid ass. I think this is what they are talking about. They never labeled you, you labeled them.


RE: Free Speech
By inighthawki on 4/4/2014 12:37:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Try and look at the other side. This guy went out of his way to contribute money to stop other consenting adults from living their lives the way they want to live it.

He has every right to support his own personal beliefs outside of work and not have them impact the business that he runs. If he wanted to donate every dollar he made to that foundation, it should not affect the business, nor the perception of that business just because he runs it.

As long as it doesn't interfere with his job, this should not even be a relevant issue.


RE: Free Speech
By ebakke on 4/4/2014 12:50:56 AM , Rating: 2
That. Times infinity.

This should have no bearing on his job, whatsoever. And I find it appalling that people believe it should. This type of 'he has the wrong thoughts... DESTROY HIM' mentality is purely destructive. Instead of engaging one another and challenging ideas/opinions head on, we silence people and destroy their livelihoods. All for having different beliefs. That should terrify anyone. It's only a matter of time before you're on the wrong side of the "correct" thoughts.


RE: Free Speech
By Digimonkey on 4/4/2014 9:38:59 AM , Rating: 2
That's not really how things work. He's the face of the company. Any negative action he performs, even off the clock, affects the company. If it impacts the company negatively through public outcry, then it's in the company's best to let that person go, or demote them.

He is not protected from this, that is not what free speech is about or ever was about.


RE: Free Speech
By tng on 4/4/2014 9:53:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If it impacts the company negatively through public outcry, then it's in the company's best to let that person go, or demote them.
Point taken... but it is the outcry itself that bothers most of us. There are a bunch of people out there that want to destroy anybody that doesn't agree with their opinion.

Basically they have become the thought police.


RE: Free Speech
By Digimonkey on 4/4/2014 10:52:29 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah but it's called freedom of speech, it's not always pretty. My advice is anybody in a high up position that represents a company should keep their mouth closed about personal/political issues. You have the right to exercise your freedom of speech, but others have the right to reciprocate and your speech does not trump theirs.

So you might not agree with what happened, but how do you prevent it in any reasonable way? I can think of no way that is possible or reasonable.


RE: Free Speech
By inighthawki on 4/4/2014 11:40:07 AM , Rating: 2
I think that's a problem itself. People should not base a company's values, the value of the company, or the CEO's ability to run that company on any personal belief of the CEO. There needs to be a clear and distinct separation of work and personal life that do not interfere with one another, otherwise the very concept of being a CEO would mean that your right to your opinion is being censored or you risk affecting the company. This guy was not hired as a CEO for his beliefs, he was hired as a CEO because he is good at his job.

So why should people associate his personal opinions with his ability to run the company if he does not try to use his personal beliefs to influence policy at the company? As long as his personal life does not impact the business, it should not matter. People, in general, should not consider this an issue.


RE: Free Speech
By Digimonkey on 4/4/2014 12:08:35 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, that's not how the world works. He knew this was a contentious issue. He alienated not only his users but his workers as well with what he done.


RE: Free Speech
By inighthawki on 4/4/2014 1:18:48 PM , Rating: 2
Id didn't say it wasn't, I'm saying it SHOULDN'T be that way. People should not place any importance on how his personal beliefs affect his ability to run a company. Doing otherwise is irrational


RE: Free Speech
By Digimonkey on 4/4/2014 1:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
So if an actor stated they hated the United States and it's citizens, it'd be irrational to boycott their movies because what they said doesn't affect their acting ability or how good the movie will be?

The reality is if you piss someone off, they'll respond. So you try not pissing millions of people off because it's detrimental to you and your career. You know like spending money to ensure you disrupt the rights of others.


RE: Free Speech
By inighthawki on 4/4/2014 2:15:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So if an actor stated they hated the United States and it's citizens, it'd be irrational to boycott their movies because what they said doesn't affect their acting ability or how good the movie will be?

Yes, precisely. If they are a good actor, why would you boycott their movies just because their personal opinion is that they hate the US and its citizens? That's completely irrational behavior.

When you pay to go see his movie, you are not paying support for his opinion, you are paying to support his work, which you think it good. People in this world are too sensitive to what other people think. We live in a world where people seem to get offended by every little word or gesture. Stick and stones, my friend.

quote:
The reality is if you piss someone off, they'll respond. So you try not pissing millions of people off because it's detrimental to you and your career. You know like spending money to ensure you disrupt the rights of others.

You don't have to agree with a person's opinion to support their right to say it, and have it be completely orthogonal to that person's ability to perform a separate, completely unrelated task.


RE: Free Speech
By Digimonkey on 4/4/2014 4:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry we're arguing two things here. I'm arguing for how life works and you're arguing for how you want life to work. There is no winner here, so I'm abandoning. I will need a closing statement.

I believe in an eye for an eye. The CEO got what was coming to him because in the end he wanted something that limited other peoples rights and that "opinion" he had has very real consequences for other people. He pushed, they pushed back harder. The end.


RE: Free Speech
By Chaser on 4/4/2014 8:07:22 PM , Rating: 1
And his rights to express his opinion? Proposition 8 in California was brought to a vote and won with with a majority. So he shouldn't have supported that proposition because it could damage his business? Business owners can't vote or support a cause. Because you don't agree with it?

Did the CA gay lobby ban oppose the prop? Nope. I remember it quite well. They thought they were going to win so they did not oppose it. Until they lost. Then all hell broke loose and an activist judge threw out the will of the people.

It's this worldview that's deeply troubling for our country.


RE: Free Speech
By Digimonkey on 4/4/2014 8:34:06 PM , Rating: 2
He used his freedom of speech. Nobody stopped him. People are just mad because you know...he used to it repress the rights of a minority. Freedom of speech is not guaranteed to be repercussion free, that's not how it works.


RE: Free Speech
By inighthawki on 4/4/2014 11:21:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but half the issue here is that he is being called out and criticized for being intolerant of the gay community, yet criticizing his opinion to the point where it tarnishes the image of the business he runs (which has nothing to do with his opinion) is no more tolerant. They are hypocrits and no better than the person they criticize.

People like to believe they're being all politically correct, but what they're really doing is oppressing anyone who does not have the same opinion of what society today has deemed to be "morally right." The internet and social media has massively accelerated peoples' willingness to "speak their minds" and downplay anyone who disagrees with them, and it's an incredibly bad trend.


RE: Free Speech
By Digimonkey on 4/5/2014 11:47:24 AM , Rating: 2
I understand where you're coming from. I believe the whole episode with the Duck Dynasty guy was overblown. This is a bit different though as he actively donated to Prop8 which succeeded in disallowing gay marriage in the state of California.

So he participated in directly blocking employees and users rights. There isn't any way that wasn't going to be taken personally. Kind of like if you voted against women's right to vote. I would suspect women and supporters would be mad, wouldn't you? Doesn't matter if it's your opinion, it has a real effect on others lives.


RE: Free Speech
By inighthawki on 4/5/2014 4:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
I definitely see your point. Donations are definitely more "actionable" than simply speaking your mind. But I still cannot accept that as a valid reason to cross the personal-business boundary.

People can be real *ssholes in life, but be incredibly good at their job. If those people can remain professional at their job, work well with others at work, and be efficient, they can be the worst person I've ever met outside of work. I, for example, don't agree with the use of recreational drugs, and I strongly frown upon their use. But if you can work with me and not have that affect our business relationship, you can go snort a pound of cocaine every night for all I care. Only when it affects me is it a problem for me.


RE: Free Speech
By ebakke on 4/4/2014 12:46:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
his guy went out of his way to contribute money to stop other consenting adults from living their lives the way they want to live it.
Whoa whoa whoa. "to stop other consenting adults from living their lives the way they want to live it"? [insert shocked face here]

That's absolutely *not* what Prop 8 was intended to do, nor what Prop 8 would've actually done. Marriage, as far as the state is concerned (religion's a whole separate ball of wax), is simply providing a set of benefits to individuals who perform a particular action. It's absolutely no different than giving a tax credit to people who buy electric cars. The legislature decided that if two adults choose to engage in a legal construct as defined by the state, they will be entitled to certain benefits. Prop 8 sought to limit those benefits to exactly one man coupling with one woman in that legal construct.

The law had no power (does any law?) to "stop other consenting adults from living their lives the way they want to live it". With or without Prop 8, adults in any number and any gender were free to cohabitate, to engage in sexual activity, to provide power of attorney privileges to one another, to raise children, etc etc. They were *not* entitled to specific benefits the populace decided only *some* people are. Again, this is no different than allowing only minority-owned businesses to apply for grants, or people with less than X income to claim tax credit Y.


RE: Free Speech
By FITCamaro on 4/4/2014 7:51:19 AM , Rating: 2
You're speaking sense. Stop it.


RE: Free Speech
By retrospooty on 4/4/2014 7:59:23 AM , Rating: 2
"The law had no power (does any law?) to "stop other consenting adults from living their lives the way they want to live it"

Yes it does, it stops 2 gays from getting married. It is limiting their rights for equal treatment plain and simple. It says, "you are different and aren't entitled to the same rights and benefits as the rest of humanity" and that is wrong, period. On top of that you cant claim anything in the name of religion. If someone elses religion dictates they should marry the one they love now you are not only trampling their right to equal rights and benefits, but their religion as well.

Serious questions to those against gay marriage.

- Why do you care what 2 other consenting adults do with their lives?

- Why do you think its your place to dictate what they do with their religions beliefs?



RE: Free Speech
By ebakke on 4/4/2014 11:26:59 AM , Rating: 2
It does *not* limit anyone's rights. It limits (or perhaps more specifically, it prevents) receipt of benefits.

It says "you are different and aren't entitled to the same benefits" (note the omission of rights) in exactly the same way an ICE car buyer is different and not entitled to the same benefits as a Volt buyer.

I'm not claiming anything in the name of religion. I explicitly excluded it from my discussion.

quote:
Serious questions to those against gay marriage.
I'm not against gay marriage, but I presume these questions were directed at me, so I'll give it a go.
- I don't care. But I don't begrudge someone for not wishing to confer benefits to individuals whose choices directly conflict with the individual's beliefs, morals, etc. Particularly when the individual's footing the bill.
- I don't give a damn what anyone else's religious beliefs are, so long as those beliefs don't turn into someone blowing me up.

This whole issue is one big farce. It's stupid. It screams "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG". The issue isn't who gets what benefits from the state, or whose "rights" are being trampled. The issue is that the state has no business in marriage whatsoever. If the state wants to provide a legal construct for easier cohabitation (and the things that come with that), fine. Great. Any N number of consenting adults should be able to engage in that. Leave marriage to the churchy people.


RE: Free Speech
By ebakke on 4/4/2014 11:32:50 AM , Rating: 2
Gah. No edit.

I didn't mean to write "you are different...". I meant to write "your actions are different...". That's a hugely important distinction.


RE: Free Speech
By retrospooty on 4/4/2014 2:45:32 PM , Rating: 2
" The issue isn't who gets what benefits from the state, or whose "rights" are being trampled. The issue is that the state has no business in marriage whatsoever."

I agree, but that isn't what is happening. It's like saying "Cant we all just get along" ? Yes, I think we all want everyone to all get along, but in the real world, that simple ideal isn't playing out. Right now, we have a group of people who aren't being allowed the same rights and privileges as all other humans. That in itself is the issue.

"the state has no business in marriage whatsoever" is not "the issue" the thought to get the govt complete out of all marriages is a potential solution, that is what I think you are getting at and I agree.


RE: Free Speech
By ebakke on 4/5/2014 2:06:23 AM , Rating: 2
You keep claiming rights are being denied. They aren't.


RE: Free Speech
By Reclaimer77 on 4/5/2014 9:27:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Right now, we have a group of people who aren't being allowed the same rights and privileges as all other humans. That in itself is the issue.


No, we really don't.

Stop making it sound like we have gays and lesbians out working the cotton fields in chains.

This is NOT a civil rights issue. If this is, then I declare my civil rights are being violated because my ICE car doesn't qualify for Obama's green subsidies.


RE: Free Speech
By retrospooty on 4/6/2014 9:20:26 AM , Rating: 2
I many states, most if a gay couple wants to get married, they are denied. The govt intrudes into their lives and says no, you are not allowed to get married. That is being denied the same rights and privileges that my wife and I have plain and simple.

Also, your analogy doesn't work. You are still free to go buy whatever car you want. The govt. inst denying you anything. In the marriage issue, they ARE being denied.


RE: Free Speech
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2014 12:29:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I many states, most if a gay couple wants to get married, they are denied.


And there are many where they aren't denied.

My advice? Move to one of those, and live happily ever after.

quote:
Also, your analogy doesn't work. You are still free to go buy whatever car you want.


Likewise they are free to move somewhere else, accept a civil union, or move in together etc etc.

quote:
The govt. inst denying you anything.


Yes they are. The Government is denying me a tax break given to EV owners, simply because my car is different than theirs.

How is this any different?

I'm tired of giving up ground and getting nothing back. Yesterday Obamacare, today gay marriage...what's tomorrow bringing?

I'm being put upon every bit as much as the LGBT's! What about my rights!?


RE: Free Speech
By retrospooty on 4/7/2014 4:51:06 PM , Rating: 2
"My advice? Move to one of those, and live happily ever after."

So if you are gay, you have to move to a different state. Sounds sane /s

"The Government is denying me a tax break given to EV owners, simply because my car is different than theirs. How is this any different?"

Well, for starters, one is a car, the other is people's lives and how they live it.

"I'm being put upon every bit as much as the LGBT's! What about my rights!?"

When you go to do something and are denied the same rights as others let us know. Until then, you are free to do whatever you want... Unless of course you are gay and want to be married of course. ;) Then you are not free.


RE: Free Speech
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2014 8:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
Look if you wanna talk about this, quit with the Lewis Farakhan act and we'll be okay. It's WAY too heavy handed. Marriage is just a piece of paper issued by the state, nobody's lives or how they "live them" are being effected here. And nobody's "freedom" is being oppressed.

quote:
When you go to do something and are denied the same rights as others let us know.


That happens to straight people too, every damn day in this country. Nice try.


RE: Free Speech
By retrospooty on 4/7/2014 10:37:25 PM , Rating: 2
It's easy for you to say that. If you wanted to get married today and the govt. told you "no, you are not valid, you have no right to the same as the rest of humanity" you might feel different.

Heavy handed? No, I don't think so, and its not a huge task that is being asked... They aren't asking for the moon. They are asking for the same basic principals outlined in the founding of this country. S/B a simple fix except for the backward asses fighting it.


RE: Free Speech
By Reclaimer77 on 4/8/2014 11:17:57 AM , Rating: 2
There are some states where my Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms are severely limited. Even prohibited in some cities. Especially if I wanted to keep my concealed & carry license.

Guess what? I choose not to live in one of those.

Yet I don't see you sitting here saying that's a travesty that us gun owners are all but banned from Liberal-leaning areas. Where is OUR equal protection under the law?

How is it some horrible thing for me to suggest people go live in areas where the political climate is more conducive to their lifestyle?

Over half the states in the country have gay marriage, and even more civil unions for same sex couples. You would like it to be 100%, and I'm sure at some point it will be, but for now, hey, 1-800-U-Haul.


RE: Free Speech
By retrospooty on 4/8/2014 3:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
"Yet I don't see you sitting here saying that's a travesty that us gun owners are all but banned from Liberal-leaning areas. Where is OUR equal protection under the law?"

Actually you do... At least you may have. I have been here at AT/DT right there arguing for you on that very subject.

Freedom for all baby!


RE: Free Speech
By Reclaimer77 on 4/8/2014 3:59:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Freedom for all baby!


Except that's not happening for all. We keep losing and losing more Freedom's to the Left every year. Economic freedoms, financial freedoms, and we just lost the freedom to dictate our own personal healthcare!

So I say if you want gay marriage, fine, you have to throw us a bone too.

Maybe that's petty, but hey I'm desperate, at this point I'll take petty.


RE: Free Speech
By retrospooty on 4/8/2014 4:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
"Except that's not happening for all. We keep losing and losing more Freedom's to the Left every year. Economic freedoms, financial freedoms, and we just lost the freedom to dictate our own personal healthcare!"

Agreed, I wasnt saying we have freedom for all. I was saying I want freedom for all.

"So I say if you want gay marriage, fine, you have to throw us a bone too"

Were it mine to throw, I would throw it.


RE: Free Speech
By Reclaimer77 on 4/8/2014 5:58:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Were it mine to throw, I would throw it.


Well in the same turn realize that it's not me or Fit or whoever else online stopping gay marriages.

I've never voted for a single candidate thinking "oh good, he's against gay marriage". Frankly I never even think about it until it's brought up.


RE: Free Speech
By TexM on 4/4/2014 12:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
When governments start defining "Morality" it never ends well - there's a reason for separation of Church and State.

Historically, Marriage has always been about a Man and a Woman - and the raising of a family within that framework. It existed long before Christianity.

If you ask any level-headed person, I bet you they really support Equality for Gays - that's just plain common sense.

What many people are probably upset about is the "Hijacking" or redefinition of what Marriage is. It's always been between a Man and Woman - to change that definition now is to dilute the definition - akin to calling Morning anytime during the day where there is sunlight. You lose the meaning, accuracy and context of the word.

2 consenting adults should do what they want with their lives - as long as it does not adversely affect others. Altering the definition of Marriage itself dilutes the historical meaning and affects everyone else.

This would have been easier solved if they called it Union, or something else other than Marriage. Most people really have bigger things to worry about than restricting rights of others.


RE: Free Speech
By retrospooty on 4/4/2014 2:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
"2 consenting adults should do what they want with their lives - as long as it does not adversely affect others."

Yup.

Altering the definition of Marriage itself dilutes the historical meaning and affects everyone else.

Nope.

2 gay guys that you don't even know and their own definition of their relationship does not in any way alter your life, your marriage, or your definition of what marriage is.


RE: Free Speech
By datdamonfoo on 4/4/2014 2:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
The historical concept of marriage was the marriage of families, where property (the woman) was offered for the promise of children (sons to work the field and bring in money, or daughters to marry to OTHER families).
It really had nothing to do with love or raising children in some familial unit.
It was all about keeping everyone alive, fed, and continuing the bring money or goods in.

Also, historical marriage usually had more than one woman per man.

Notice how the "definition" of marriage has changed significantly over time. Marriage is an arbitrary concept created by humans. It can "change definitions" at anytime, because we are the ones who created it. Outside of our pathetically short lives, "marriage" means diddly squat. We could get rid of marriage tomorrow and the Earth would keep spinning, the universe would keep expanding, and the sun would keep shining.


RE: Free Speech
By spamreader1 on 4/4/2014 10:26:38 AM , Rating: 2
Jesus would tell them to go forth and sin no more. He would not tell anyone to kill them, disrespect them, prevent them from employment, fear them, sin against them, or hate them. God does indeed Love everyone and wishes to have personal relationships with us all. God is also intolerant of sin and wants us to obey Him, He however does not force us to obey Him.

Whatever issue the now unemployed CEO has with God, God will deal with. This man as far as I know has not violated any laws, and somehow is being punished publicly anyway.


RE: Free Speech
By Belegost on 4/3/2014 11:02:20 PM , Rating: 2
As long as you're also in support of polygamous and incestuous marriage.


RE: Free Speech
By retrospooty on 4/3/2014 11:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
if its all consenting adults it's fine by me. it's not like they're forcing me into it. the key word is consenting adults.


RE: Free Speech
By wordsworm on 4/9/2014 1:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
That would be a compromise between liberals and conservatives: liberals get to marry gays and conservatives can marry their siblings.


RE: Free Speech
By Chyort on 4/3/2014 11:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
How is condemning someone for disagreeing with you anything but ignorant and intolerant?

You either agree with being tolerant, in which case his beliefs are none of your business. Or you don't, in which case you need to get off your soap box.

Personally i couldn't care less one way or the other. But watching the double standards, and "Do as i say, not as i do." BS is somewhat annoying.

If his beliefs were affecting the product in anyway you might have a leg to stand on, as long as they stay separate, you don't in my view.

But hey, that is the joy of freedom of speech and tolerance... I believe it is your right to speak your mind, even if i disagree. I might point out the flaws as i see them, but i wont try to crucify you to further my goals/opinion.


RE: Free Speech
By retrospooty on 4/3/2014 11:35:08 PM , Rating: 2
I see your point about tolerance it does work both ways. But let's not forget its not like the public actually came after this guy with pitchforks. He stepped down on his own, either that or others within Mozilla forced him to resign.

With that said, you also have to agree that when there are two sides to an argument and one of those sides is being denied the same basic rights as all other humans have and the other side is trying to stop them from gaining those same rights tolerance isn't exactly an equal two way street. back in the 1800's there were plenty of people who thought blacks should remain enslaved. is that just a difference of opinion that should have been tolerated? No, because one side of that argument was being enslaved any other side was trying to enslave people. See the difference?


RE: Free Speech
By Noonecares on 4/4/2014 12:00:45 AM , Rating: 2
Just to clarify something about the 1800's compared to now. One very big thing is money. The oppressed at that time had little money and education. Compared to now, where its basically buy your pawn for office. I don't care if a person is gay or not. As long as they aren't a jackass, we can get along fine. Like it or not, from what I am seeing as the trend. It has a high chance to be interjected into anything like religion. I don't believe in God but the first thing a christian will tell after I say that is that I'm going to hell. Last time I checked only God can judge me, might not be my god but I am sure you aren't his handpicked messenger.


RE: Free Speech
By Chyort on 4/4/2014 12:06:13 AM , Rating: 2
1) i don't have to agree with anything. :P

2) Your trying to compare slavery and gay marriages... You do see the flaw here right? Slavery resulted in people being lynched and other horrible atrocities... You diminish the historical significance of slavery by even trying to make the comparison.

3) Marriage started out as a religious institution. Many of which are opposed to homosexuality. Over time it gained more earthly connections... Should the religions and their views be trampled in the name of tolerance? Which in and of itself is intolerant.

I could agree a lot easier with separating religious marriage and legal marriage(call it a legal union or something else to keep them separate and distinct)
That way tolerance is upheld.

But as it stands many, if not all, marriage laws are religious based and as such exclude homosexual marriages...
Changing the laws is one thing, pretending they say something completely different is another.


RE: Free Speech
By Ringold on 4/4/2014 12:36:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But as it stands many, if not all, marriage laws are religious based and as such exclude homosexual marriages...
Changing the laws is one thing, pretending they say something completely different is another.


Exactly. As I said elsewhere, if they gave up the religious fight and focused on legal benefits and a more libertarian argument I think they'd have a FAR easier time.


RE: Free Speech
By inighthawki on 4/4/2014 3:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
Are they even fighting for the religious part though? Most gay couples want to get married to be legally joined and reap the benefits of a marriage. Marriage already has two different meanings - one in the religious context, and one in the legal context. Why can we not just redefine the latter definition and keep the first? Are religious people not aware of the concept that one word can mean two things?


RE: Free Speech
By Solandri on 4/4/2014 4:37:33 PM , Rating: 2
Because anti-religious people will use the legal definition to sue religious people using the original definition. e.g. "Why won't you allow a gay couple to marry at your church? That is discrimination. Your church must allow the gay couple to marry there."

Why create the possibility of this sort of problem by redefining 'marriage', when an almost-equivalent legal term already exists - 'civil union'.


RE: Free Speech
By MrBlastman on 4/4/2014 4:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
I put my money on black. Many of them hate religion and are using this as a disguise to hide their true motives.


RE: Free Speech
By retrospooty on 4/4/2014 7:53:08 AM , Rating: 2
"Your trying to compare slavery and gay marriages"

No, not literally the comparison is this. 2 sides of the argument, both claiming "intolerance" one sides way will limit the rights of another, the other sides way doesnt limit any elses rights. - That is what I am saying.

"Marriage started out as a religious institution. Many of which are opposed to homosexuality. Over time it gained more earthly connections... Should the religions and their views be trampled in the name of tolerance?"

How does 2 gay peoples marriage trample anyone elses views? If its their way and their religion dictates its OK, who are you (or anyone) to disagree?


RE: Free Speech
By Reclaimer77 on 4/4/14, Rating: 0
RE: Free Speech
By saarek on 4/4/2014 9:38:10 AM , Rating: 2
I suppose it depends on the country and ones definition of marriage.

If a homosexual couple are able to have a civil partnership that supplies all of the benefits that a heterosexual couple would attain through marriage what is the issue?

There is a difference between being tolerant of someones choices and being in agreement with said choices.

Many people see the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

This is not to say that a gay person cannot feel love or that they cannot have a long lasting relationship.

But if a gay couple can have all of the benefits of a marriage why would they be unhappy with that?


RE: Free Speech
By Strunf on 4/4/2014 7:53:24 AM , Rating: 2
hmm I think you should recheck the meaning of the word tolerance... Homosexuals do not want more rights than heterosexuals, they want the same rights, being tolerant is allowing them (regardless of your beliefs) to live as they want, not being tolerant is trying to make them change their way of living. It's a clear cut case.


RE: Free Speech
By FITCamaro on 4/4/2014 8:38:31 AM , Rating: 1
Tolerance is accepting people as they are. Not agreeing with them and everything they want to do.

I tolerate gays in that I will be courteous, kind, and accepting of them as people. But I do not have to agree with the way they live their lives or them wanting to redefine an institution that God gave us as a union between one man and one woman.

You try to say that legal marriage doesn't care about religion. I saw that the law shouldn't care about marriage. Government intrusion has made this become an issue. Not my beliefs. States do have the right to make laws about what is and is not a marriage to them legally. I say though that they shouldn't at all. They should remain out of it and not make laws that care about someone's marital status. Issues like visitation rights, health insurance, and death benefits should be between people and companies/hospitals. The government has no business getting involved.

If I was a health insurance provider and I wanted to allow two men to buy a joint policy (or not), that should be my business and theirs. Not the government.


RE: Free Speech
By tayb on 4/4/2014 10:00:30 AM , Rating: 2
Marriage existed long before a bunch of goat herders invented a religion. It's not a religious ceremony just because you worship a religion that decided to hijack it. If two people want to share their lives it has nothing to do with you or your religion.

Marriage is recognized by the government because of people such as yourself and your religion. Deal with the consequences. Everyone in this country is equal and has equal rights under the law. Sorry that you pushed too hard for your religion to intrude on the rights of others.


RE: Free Speech
By Strunf on 4/4/2014 7:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
A marriage (the legal one) is a contract so it's normal the state defines some rules about it, otherwise it would be a complete mess when things go bad.
I don't think homosexuals are asking to be married by the catholic church, why would they, if the catholic church (or any other) is against homosexuality then why would they want to be part of it, they just want the legal advantages of being married. Discrimination based on sex is against the universal declaration of human rights and as such homosexuals should be granted the exact same rights as the heterosexuals.

"If I was a health insurance provider and I wanted to allow two men to buy a joint policy (or not), that should be my business and theirs. Not the government."
Why stop at homosexuals, make it possible to discriminate against black people, against women or against Muslims, I thought we were long past this mindset. All of this is also a violation of the UDHR and hence should be illegal.


RE: Free Speech
By astralsolace on 4/4/2014 3:17:05 PM , Rating: 1
Wrong. Nobody gives a shit what this guy *believes*. The difference is that he contributed to a campaign explicitly designed to strip LGBT families of equality under the law.

You can BELIEVE whatever you want. When you try to enshrine your moral disapproval into the law to strip someone of rights, isn't it FUNNY HOW THEY HAVE AN OPINION ON THAT. Dumb as always, FitCamaro.